瑜伽師地論略纂 1.22

1.22

In the commentary, samādhi is contrasted with samāhita to form four propositions; the third, which speaks of 'concomitant', means either 'concomitant with samādhi' or 'the samāhita-bhūmi', referring to the minds and mental factors in the states of concentration with mind in the dhyānas and formless attainments, excluding samādhi itself, because the essence of samādhi is only a single distinct-object concentration factor. It is merely that because searching and investigation involve deduction and non-deduction, their coarse and subtle states differ, their essence is not among the three trainings, and they lack superior benefit, the word 'having' is used to reveal their states; the essence of concentration is a training and has superior benefit, so merely stating 'concentration and non-[concentration] bhūmi' reveals the distinction without needing to say 'having'. Because mind, alike to searching and investigation, also lacks distinct superior benefit in its essence and is not a training dharma, the word 'having' is likewise used to distinguish it, speaking of the bhūmis with mind and without mind. The third question: Why does the verse not say 'samāhita and non-', but says 'together with samādhi and non-'; what is the intention? Answer: The intention is to reveal the difference between samādhi and samāhita. Whatever is samāhita encompasses the merits of the five aggregates. Fearing that one might think samādhi also encompasses the five aggregates, it says 'together with samādhi', revealing that only with the word 'together' does it encompass the five aggregates. Samādhi is merely a single concentration factor, and is therefore not identical to samāhita; thus its name is listed. The verse and the prose commentary differ. Even though that reasoning holds, even if one said 'together with samādhi', it would still differ in scope from samāhita: samāhita is the five aggregates of the upper two realms, whereas the expression 'together with samādhi' has an essence encompassing all five aggregates of the three realms. Therefore, one should simply explain it according to the prior meaning. The fourth question: Why, when there are so many mental factors, are searching, investigation, and the presence or absence of concentration uniquely used to clarify distinctions in states, functions, and so forth, rather than using prajñā versus non-prajñā, delusion versus non-delusion, and so forth, to distinguish differences in states and functions? Answer: In principle it should be so, but because predominant states are indicated in brief, other factors are not mentioned. That is to say, because the higher and lower bhūmis of 'with searching' and so forth differ in coarseness and subtlety, and equipoise and non-equipoise differ in realms of higher and lower, concentrated and distracted, these two are predominant, so they are selectively established in brief. For this reason the commentary says: 'Here, brevity is preserved, and for now seventeen are stated. It is not that a bhūmi cannot be established based on other dharmas, because a yogācāra uses all dharmas as support and object.' The fifth question: Why does it not speak of bhūmis of wholesome mind and unwholesome mind, but only speaks of having mind and lacking mind? Answer: Because the general is superior, while the specific is inferior. The sixth question: Among the practices of the three vehicles, there are also practices of merit; why are only the three prajñās stated as bhūmis? Answer: Because prajñā is foremost and subsumes everything; hence the treatise names them the bhūmis formed by them, as prajñā is singularly predominant among supramundane practices. The seventh question: Why among the five vehicles are humans and gods not mentioned, but only the three vehicles? Answer: Because the most superior vehicles are stated, not the inferior; vehicles having lineage are stated, not those lacking lineage. The eighth question: Why, when there are four nirvāṇas as well as bodhi, are only two supports stated? Answer: Because they are common to the three vehicles, only the two cessations are stated; non-abiding [nirvāṇa] is solely the fruit of the Great Vehicle, and its self-nature is fundamentally established. Furthermore, they are completely subsumed: merely stating the two supports without stating the two nirvāṇas subsumes bodhi; generally stating the two supports without stating the two cessations subsumes all four. As for the inherently pure nirvāṇa, it is fundamentally and originally present and not newly attained now, so it is not stated as a fruit. The explanation of the initial introductory text is concluded.